Comparison Overview

RBL Bank

VS

CIC

RBL Bank

RBL Bank Limited, One World Center, Tower 2B , 6th Floor, 841, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel (W), Mumbai, Maharashtra, IN, 400013
Last Update: 2025-12-09
View Profile
Between 750 and 799
https://www.rblbank.com

RBL Bank is one of India’s fastest growing private sector banks with an expanding presence across the country. The Bank offers specialized services under six business verticals namely: Corporate & Institutional Banking, Commercial Banking, Branch & Business Banking, Retail Assets and Treasury and Financial Markets Operations. It currently services over 11.53 million customers through a network of 517 branches; 1,166 business correspondent branches (of which 298 banking outlets) and 414 ATMs spread across 28 Indian states and Union Territories. RBL Bank is listed on both NSE and BSE (RBLBANK). For further details, please visit https://www.rblbank.com RBL Bank Blog - https://blog.rblbank.com/ Don’t share personal or sensitive details on social media. Refer to our Bank’s social media guideline: https://bit.ly/3OVgJ4p

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 15,163
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0
View Profile

CIC

6, Avenue de Provence, None, Paris, Île-de-France, FR, 75009
Last Update: 2025-12-09
Between 750 and 799
http://www.cic.fr

CIC is the fourth largest banking group in France, consisting of seven regional banks which operate across France through a network of 1,844 branches employing 24,000 staff. CIC's customer base includes 2.7 million retail clients. One in eleven self-employed professionals is a CIC group client and nearly one in three companies banks with CIC Group.

NAICS: 52211
NAICS Definition: Commercial Banking
Employees: 11,132
Subsidiaries: 0
12-month incidents
0
Known data breaches
0
Attack type number
0

Compliance Badges Comparison

Security & Compliance Standards Overview

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rbl-bank.jpeg
RBL Bank
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cic.jpeg
CIC
—
ISO 27001
ISO 27001 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 1
SOC2 Type 1 certification not verified
Not verified
—
SOC2 Type 2
SOC2 Type 2 certification not verified
Not verified
—
GDPR
GDPR certification not verified
Not verified
—
PCI DSS
PCI DSS certification not verified
Not verified
—
HIPAA
HIPAA certification not verified
Not verified
Compliance Summary
RBL Bank
100%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified
CIC
0%
Compliance Rate
0/4 Standards Verified

Benchmark & Cyber Underwriting Signals

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for RBL Bank in 2025.

Incidents vs Banking Industry Average (This Year)

No incidents recorded for CIC in 2025.

Incident History — RBL Bank (X = Date, Y = Severity)

RBL Bank cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Incident History — CIC (X = Date, Y = Severity)

CIC cyber incidents detection timeline including parent company and subsidiaries

Notable Incidents

Last 3 Security & Risk Events by Company

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/rbl-bank.jpeg
RBL Bank
Incidents

No Incident

https://images.rankiteo.com/companyimages/cic.jpeg
CIC
Incidents

No Incident

FAQ

CIC company demonstrates a stronger AI Cybersecurity Score compared to RBL Bank company, reflecting its advanced cybersecurity posture governance and monitoring frameworks.

Historically, CIC company has disclosed a higher number of cyber incidents compared to RBL Bank company.

In the current year, CIC company and RBL Bank company have not reported any cyber incidents.

Neither CIC company nor RBL Bank company has reported experiencing a ransomware attack publicly.

Neither CIC company nor RBL Bank company has reported experiencing a data breach publicly.

Neither CIC company nor RBL Bank company has reported experiencing targeted cyberattacks publicly.

Neither RBL Bank company nor CIC company has reported experiencing or disclosing vulnerabilities publicly.

Neither RBL Bank nor CIC holds any compliance certifications.

Neither company holds any compliance certifications.

Neither RBL Bank company nor CIC company has publicly disclosed detailed information about the number of their subsidiaries.

RBL Bank company employs more people globally than CIC company, reflecting its scale as a Banking.

Neither RBL Bank nor CIC holds SOC 2 Type 1 certification.

Neither RBL Bank nor CIC holds SOC 2 Type 2 certification.

Neither RBL Bank nor CIC holds ISO 27001 certification.

Neither RBL Bank nor CIC holds PCI DSS certification.

Neither RBL Bank nor CIC holds HIPAA certification.

Neither RBL Bank nor CIC holds GDPR certification.

Latest Global CVEs (Not Company-Specific)

Description

NXLog Agent before 6.11 can load a file specified by the OPENSSL_CONF environment variable.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 8.1
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:H/A:H
References
Description

uriparser through 0.9.9 allows unbounded recursion and stack consumption, as demonstrated by ParseMustBeSegmentNzNc with large input containing many commas.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 2.9
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A vulnerability was detected in Mayan EDMS up to 4.10.1. The affected element is an unknown function of the file /authentication/. The manipulation results in cross site scripting. The attack may be performed from remote. The exploit is now public and may be used. Upgrading to version 4.10.2 is sufficient to fix this issue. You should upgrade the affected component. The vendor confirms that this is "[f]ixed in version 4.10.2". Furthermore, that "[b]ackports for older versions in process and will be out as soon as their respective CI pipelines complete."

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss2
Base: 5.0
Severity: LOW
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N
cvss3
Base: 4.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
cvss4
Base: 5.3
Severity: LOW
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X
References
Description

MJML through 4.18.0 allows mj-include directory traversal to test file existence and (in the type="css" case) read files. NOTE: this issue exists because of an incomplete fix for CVE-2020-12827.

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 4.5
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:L/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:C/C:L/I:N/A:L
References
Description

A half-blind Server Side Request Forgery (SSRF) vulnerability exists in kube-controller-manager when using the in-tree Portworx StorageClass. This vulnerability allows authorized users to leak arbitrary information from unprotected endpoints in the control plane’s host network (including link-local or loopback services).

Published
Date
2025-12-14
Updated
Date
2025-12-14
Risk Information
cvss3
Base: 5.8
Severity: HIGH
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:H/UI:N/S:C/C:H/I:N/A:N
References